What Happened to the Dinosaurs?

[ARGOSY]

 

 

  Your picture makes Shiloh's point for him. A cedar is a strong tree, symbolic of strength.  An elephant's legs and body are like a cedar, but its tail is more like a swaying branch than a cedar tree. I believe sometimes Shiloh is not being honest with the text, but in this case you are not being honest with the text. Honestly you need to find an animal with a strong and powerful tail.

How do you spell nitpicking?

Your post here.

Actually, I don't need to find any other animal with a strong tail. It doesn't say its tail is a cedar; it says its tail sways like a cedar. Oy ve

17Its tail sways like a cedar;

the sinews of its thighs are close-knit.

Sway means to go back and forth. That photo shows you his tail is going back and forth just like cedar trees in the wind.

If it doesn't mean this to you, find, make it mean what you want it to mean.

Sigh! Shaking my head over this one.

Spock definitely out

 

Its tail sways like a weak branch, its tail does not sway at all like a cedar. 

 

And if you bring up weak arguments and I pick them apart, its a bit of copout to say I'm nitpicking. 

[JohnD]

So often we project modern understanding and modern settings to times and places that neither apply.

 

I have heard the pooh pooh arguments against this (surprisingly one of the arguments against the canopy theory is ICR {the Institute for Creation Research} ) the upper canopy / vapor canopy theory.

 

If the earth was enveloped by a vapor canopy (the way Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune are with gas canopies) then conditions here on earth would have been drastically different. The 900+ year longevity of people and animal for example.

 

So dinosaurs could simply have been 900+ year old reptiles some of the species we have with us today though much smaller with much shorter life spans. 

 

Interesting every ancient culture has a dragon legend... a rose by any other name...

 

The drastic change was the collapse of the canopy on earth (Noah's Flood) contributing some of the water to that flood along with burst subterranean vaults of water causing upthrusts of mountain ranges and continental splitting (if not hyper speed tectonic plate gliding) and ocean bottoms collapsing to modern depths. 

[LookingForAnswers]

 

 

 

  Your picture makes Shiloh's point for him. A cedar is a strong tree, symbolic of strength.  An elephant's legs and body are like a cedar, but its tail is more like a swaying branch than a cedar tree. I believe sometimes Shiloh is not being honest with the text, but in this case you are not being honest with the text. Honestly you need to find an animal with a strong and powerful tail.

How do you spell nitpicking?

Your post here.

Actually, I don't need to find any other animal with a strong tail. It doesn't say its tail is a cedar; it says its tail sways like a cedar. Oy ve

17Its tail sways like a cedar;

the sinews of its thighs are close-knit.

Sway means to go back and forth. That photo shows you his tail is going back and forth just like cedar trees in the wind.

If it doesn't mean this to you, find, make it mean what you want it to mean.

Sigh! Shaking my head over this one.

Spock definitely out

 

Its tail sways like a weak branch, its tail does not sway at all like a cedar. 

 

And if you bring up weak arguments and I pick them apart, its a bit of copout to say I'm nitpicking. 

 

 

If you have ever seen a cedar sway you would know the only part that actually moves if the skinny part of the top and the branches, the big huge (not that all cedars have them) trunk is not moving at all. I think the elephant is a prefect example of what is being spoke on

[ARGOSY]

 

 

 

 

  Your picture makes Shiloh's point for him. A cedar is a strong tree, symbolic of strength.  An elephant's legs and body are like a cedar, but its tail is more like a swaying branch than a cedar tree. I believe sometimes Shiloh is not being honest with the text, but in this case you are not being honest with the text. Honestly you need to find an animal with a strong and powerful tail.

How do you spell nitpicking?

Your post here.

Actually, I don't need to find any other animal with a strong tail. It doesn't say its tail is a cedar; it says its tail sways like a cedar. Oy ve

17Its tail sways like a cedar;

the sinews of its thighs are close-knit.

Sway means to go back and forth. That photo shows you his tail is going back and forth just like cedar trees in the wind.

If it doesn't mean this to you, find, make it mean what you want it to mean.

Sigh! Shaking my head over this one.

Spock definitely out

 

Its tail sways like a weak branch, its tail does not sway at all like a cedar. 

 

And if you bring up weak arguments and I pick them apart, its a bit of copout to say I'm nitpicking. 

 

 

If you have ever seen a cedar sway you would know the only part that actually moves if the skinny part of the top and the branches, the big huge (not that all cedars have them) trunk is not moving at all. I think the elephant is a prefect example of what is being spoke on

 

If you want to believe the bible was referring to the kind of small branches that are found on every tree, then you are welcome to convince yourself of that. I see a cedar as representing a strong and not easily bending tree. Its merely symbolic language to refer to how immensely powerful this tail is. I'm fine to agree to disagree here, if any neutrals are reading this debate , they can decide, but we certainly are not going to convince eachother.

[Guest shiloh357]

Thank you for agreeing levitation in Isaiah is probably alluding to satan and not some sea creature. I didn't think you would concede that, but to your credit, you did, wisely I may add.

Now, leviathan in Job is very descriptive and it says NOTHING of being a sea creature. Read it carefully here below.

I think you are the one who needs to read a little more carefully, Spock:   Note verses 7 and  31 in the passage you quoted above...

 

 "Can you fill its hide with harpoon sor its head with fishing spears?" Job 41:7

 

"It makes the depths churn like a boiling caldron and stirs up the sea like a pot of ointment. It leaves a glistening wake behind it;

one would think the deep had white hair." Job 41:31-32

 

Both of those verses indiate that the leviathan is some kind of sea creature and the word "sea" is actally used in v. 31.  

 

 

Shiloh, for you to see a dinosaur as leviathan is comical and I have never seen any older commentaries that agree with you.

 

No what is comical is the way you post Scriptures that you didn't read while lecturing me about "reading carefully."  

 

 

First You can't possibly see an elephant as behemoth, and for some reason you can't see a crocodile in this passage.

 

It doesn't match te description of the behomoth in the text.   You can kick against the goads, but at the end of the day, Elephants tails don't sway like a cedar.  Try as you might, you simply don't have a case.

 

and for some reason you can't see a crocodile in this passage.

 

Because a crocodile doesn't match the description of the leviathan in text of Job.   All it is intellectual suicide on your part, to try and make these creatures elephants and crocodiles.   You are batting zero on that.

 

 

Fish hook does not infer sea Shiloh.

 

 

"Fish hook," "harpoons" and "fishing spears"  in verse 7 DO infer "sea" creature, Spock.  Again, I guess you needn't lecture me on reading carefully. 

[kwikphilly]

Blessings EVERYONE..

       What a beautiful Sunday it is ...indeed,this is the day the Lord has made ,we shall rejoice & be glad in it!!!!!!!

  This bickering over how the descriptions of these creatures paint a picture in each of our minds actually hurts my heart.......for Spock,he envisions an elephant & a crocodile(or even considers it to be a metaphor)......for Shiloh & I ,we see prehistoric creatures......and whats the difference?As Argosy has already stated,we are not going to persuade one another to see what we see or believe what we believe but my beloved brothers,it is not something to bring any of us to the point of name calling "are you not man enough"....that statement brought me to tears.......the enemy is having a field day  & we should all quickly recognize those fiery darts and show him who we are!!!!!We are Brothers & Sisters in Christ Jesus & no weapon formed against us shall prosper,in Jesus Mighty Name!!!

          I love you all,God bless us all ....shall we rejoice together & be glad in this,the Lords Day?Lets reason together,love one another & speak to one another as images of Christ,Who loves us dearly.......Glory to God in the Highest!

                                                                                                                                     With love,in Christ-Kwik

[Guest shiloh357]

Ha!!   That's your proof??   You've got to be kidding me.      Honestly,  I can't believe anyone could see THAT as reprsenting what it says about the behomoth's tail.  

 

All animal's tails either sway or wiggle back and borth    But when the writer says it sways like cedar, it is making a unique visual comparison to the size and motion of the tail.  It is not meant to be a visual one-to-one exact comparison of how a cedar moves.

 

What is interesting is that the Hebrew word  for "sway" or "move" (depending on your Englsh translation) is y'khaphetz and it is a verb in teh Qal form and it refers to bending down.   It is a tail that this huge creature and move and bend around back and forth.   That is impossible if we are talking about an elephant or a hippopatamus or any other large land mammal.  No other creature on earth fits the description of the behemoth, so this is a creature that lived during the days of Job but is now extinct.

 

That you would offer up that as proof for your argument is the comedy relief I needed today.

[Enoch2021]

Blessings EVERYONE..

       What a beautiful Sunday it is ...indeed,this is the day the Lord has made ,we shall rejoice & be glad in it!!!!!!!

  This bickering over how the descriptions of these creatures paint a picture in each of our minds actually hurts my heart.......for Spock,he envisions an elephant & a crocodile(or even considers it to be a metaphor)......for Shiloh & I ,we see prehistoric creatures......and whats the difference?As Argosy has already stated,we are not going to persuade one another to see what we see or believe what we believe but my beloved brothers,it is not something to bring any of us to the point of name calling "are you not man enough"....that statement brought me to tears.......the enemy is having a field day  & we should all quickly recognize those fiery darts and show him who we are!!!!!We are Brothers & Sisters in Christ Jesus & no weapon formed against us shall prosper,in Jesus Mighty Name!!!

          I love you all,God bless us all ....shall we rejoice together & be glad in this,the Lords Day?Lets reason together,love one another & speak to one another as images of Christ,Who loves us dearly.......Glory to God in the Highest!

                                                                                                                                     With love,in Christ-Kwik

 

Thank You kwikphilly.

 

Also.....

 

I was told on this forum that G-d or L-rd was a technique employed so as to not accidentally use the NAME of GOD Disrespectfully or somehow in a Demeaning Manner.

 

Ok, got it.

 

Does everyone apply this same caution TO THE WORD??

 

GOD magnifies his WORD even above his name.

 

I've observed many people (IMHO, Haphazardly and Flippantly in some cases) both YEC and OEC messing around with the WORD.  It means this or that.... and it could've or should've said this to mean that.

 

And you betcha, I'm talking to myself here also!!

 

This has been on my heart and I will admonish anyone attempting to CHANGE----- ADD To or Take Away from The WORD OF GOD or undertaking any such endeavor having to do with WHAT IT PLAINLY SAYS...... to tread here With EXTREME CAUTION ^{100000000000000000000000000}!!

 

(Deuteronomy 4:2) "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you."

 

(Revelation 22:18-19) "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:  {19} And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

 

There's a fine line between an Interpretation and ADDING TO OR TAKING AWAY.

 

We will ALL have to stand and give account Brothers and Sisters.  If it were me, I'd be ROCK HARD SURE then re-think it for 5 years then be ROCK HARD SURE again, before I'd consider it !!

 

JMHO

 

Hope it helps

[Spock]

Ok, just got back from kicking some butt in tennis and I feel great, so getting back to this thread, I now have a change of heart, somewhat.

After reading job 41 several times, I no longer can be dogmatic that this creature is a crocodile. It could be, but maybe it isn't.

A few verses confused me this time around, especially the following:

18Its snorting throws out flashes of light;

its eyes are like the rays of dawn.

19Flames stream from its mouth;

sparks of fire shoot out.

20Smoke pours from its nostrils

as from a boiling pot over burning reeds.

21Its breath sets coals ablaze,

and flames dart from its mouth.

This doesn't sound like a crocodile but more like some kind of dragon.

So, I'm now unsure what this is. I admit, I read this too quickly this morning and did not read the entire 34 verses carefully.

I still don't see dinosaur coming out of the water, so maybe some whale maybe?

Not sure, just thinking out loud.

I know the bible talks about dragons, but I'm not sure what a dragon is apart from television. Anybody else have any insight on this.

Side note:

Shiloh, sorry if my tone was a wee bit caustic this morning toward you. Kwikphilly, thanks for bringing me back down to be the person God wants me to be. Argosy, didn't mean to jump you either, although I did enjoy writing that nitpicking post. Lol To everyone else who perhaps was upset with my tone, I apologize to you too and ask for your forgiveness. I'm better than that.

Spock humbly walking out

[a-seeker]

 

Actually, I find it more amusing that when science corroborates Biblical narratives (i.e. studies of dinosaur bones suggests a flood), Shiloh (and others) hails science.........but when it doesn't (i.e. old earth theory), well science is constantly changing and should be dismissed....

 

I would think two approaches to this question far more consistent:

 

a) claims by paleontologists are to be taken a priori as highly questionable, since they are found by at worst, sinful man, at best, fallible man

 

b) claims by paleontologists (as scientists) are irrelevant and should never be consulted, today they corroborate, tomorrow they refute.

 

Instead it seems we are allowed to pick and choose: whenever scientists agree with the Bible (or rather, our reading of the Bible) then science is a worthy partner in Biblical studies: when they don't, science is a highly questionable enterprise and ought not be trusted.

 

clb

 

 

"Shiloh (and others) hails science"

 

That "and others" I'm assuming is me?

 

"Instead it seems we are allowed to pick and choose:"

 

Strawman.

 

We're not picking and choosing, we have a problem with: "Scientific Claims" and "Claims" that Scientists make!

 

See the difference?

 

To be "Scientific" or claim "Scientific Evidence" then it has to conform to the 7 Step Scientific Method....

 

'Scientific Evidence: consists of observations and EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.'

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

 

Your examples:

 

"a) claims by paleontologists....."

"b) claims by paleontologists (as scientists)...."

 

Paleontology is a study about the past.  Please show me any postulate or "Claim" that they make and then put it into the "Scientific Method".  Good Luck

 

So,

 

"paleontologists (as scientists)"

 

Does that infer some type of Authority or validity of Truth?  Are you using "as scientists" as a Pseudo "stand in" for the lack of the Scientific Method??

 

Some equal statements concerning claims they (or insert: any "science" discipline) make without the Scientific Method:

 

"paleontologists (as Seattle Seahawk's fans)...."

 

"paleontologists (as Democrats)...."

 

"paleontologists (as Surfers)...."

 

No disrespect to you or paleontologists meant but "Scientific Evidence/Claims" means "Scientific Method"...Period, end of story.

 

Savvy?

 

I have read your response numerous times and I still have no idea what your point was, so I can't say whether it was savvy.

 

Your point seems to be

 

a) paleontologists don't use the Scientific Method; therefore claims they make are trustworthy...?  IF they used the Scientific Method, then their claims would be out of court.  Have I got that right?  You see a flaw in the Scientific Method??

 

b) that when scientists claim the earth to be very old, they are merely making claims, not scientific claims--does this mean they have applied no method; there is no evidence in favor of an old earth?

 

I doubt that is what you mean (the two are contradictory), so to keep things moving I will reiterate my point made to Shiloh (and I said "and others" so as not to isolate him; I hadn't read your posts).

 

In all discussions regarding the age of the earth (which, by the by, is a subject pertinent to the branch of paleontology and that the majority of vote of that branch is in favor of a very old earth) claims made by scientists were dismissed because, again, the overwhelming vote was that the earth was much older than a literal reading of Genesis would have us believe.   The conflict was not over the distinction between "Scientific Claims" and "Claims made by scientists".  The conflict was between Scripture and Science.  I take the position that if the sciences tell us the earth is older than one reading of the Bible, then it is a legitimate maneuver to question our reading of Scripture.  Shiloh (if I understood him) said no.

 

However, in the question of dinosaurs he was quite eager to accept any theory that supported the flood narrative.

 

This to me is terribly inconsistent.

 

 

clb