Dinosaurs?

[Hugs of Love]

Oh yeah, about Chi_Cygni's repsonse. I believe everything that the bible says and it says that there was a global flood (Genesis 7:6-24) and that people in the early days lived up to 950 years (Genesis 9:28). It is God's word and he never lies.

 

[Ron21647]

Thank you for posting up your personal opinions. For future readers, they need to remeber that nobody knows for sure where dinosaurs came from, how they died, how long they lived, etc. We are definetly entitled to our own believes and I think it's great that we can share them with eachother, we just need to remeber that they're not facts yet.

FYI,
my post earlier about Leviathan and Behemoth were opinions.

The one about dinosaurs not being lizards, and the last ones dying 65 million years ago are fact.

Ron

 

[Chi_Cygni]

Thank you for posting up your personal opinions. For future readers, they need to remeber that nobody knows for sure where dinosaurs came from, how they died, how long they lived, etc. We are definetly entitled to our own believes and I think it's great that we can share them with eachother, we just need to remeber that they're not facts yet.

Some facts:

Dinosaurs came from here. Remains found on every continent.

Lifespans can be judged somewhat as for many dead creatures based upon bone structure.

 

[Chi_Cygni]

Oh yeah, about Chi_Cygni's repsonse. I believe everything that the bible says and it says that there was a global flood (Genesis 7:6-24) and that people in the early days lived up to 950 years (Genesis 9:28). It is God's word and he never lies.

It is only God's Word based upon you being told it is God's Word.
The Global Flood is a piece of mythological nonsense that cannot hold up to scrutiny from either a geological or physics perspective. It just doesn't compute.
Not one skeleton of a human with evidence of 900 year lifespans has ever been found. In fact just the opposite - lifespans are increasing over time not decreasing. From a human physiological standpoint this doesn't hold up.

To believe everything the Bible says is being obtuse to the nth degree. It also means you have to believe contradicting stories.

 

[Liangonesearmy]

It is only God's Word based upon you being told it is God's Word.
The Global Flood is a piece of mythological nonsense that cannot hold up to scrutiny from either a geological or physics perspective. It just doesn't compute.
Not one skeleton of a human with evidence of 900 year lifespans has ever been found. In fact just the opposite - lifespans are increasing over time not decreasing. From a human physiological standpoint this doesn't hold up.

To believe everything the Bible says is being obtuse to the nth degree. It also means you have to believe contradicting stories.

If you don't believe the Bible, what is your faith based on?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Two points:

1) Not taking the Bible literally is not the same thing as not believing it.
2) Christian faith is based on Our Lord Jesus Christ, not the Bible.

 

[Liangonesearmy]

And how do you know about the Lord Jesus w/o His Word? religious authorities? tradition? there's a reason Jesus said "Heavens and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away." Christianity is essentially built on the manifest truth of God's Word. What do you think John meant when he likened Christ to the Word in John 1?

 

[Chi_Cygni]

If you don't believe the Bible, what is your faith based on?

I don't worship the Bible - it seems many on this board do!

I don't believe the OT as literal truth.

 

[Liangonesearmy]

You didn't answer the question

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

And how do you know about the Lord Jesus w/o His Word? religious authorities? tradition?

The Bible as we have it now did not exist when the first Christians planted their churches. They had religious authorities and tradition. The Bible is part of tradition.

there's a reason Jesus said "Heavens and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away." Christianity is essentially built on the manifest truth of God's Word. What do you think John meant when he likened Christ to the Word in John 1?

I see no reason to suppose that when John wrote about the Word he was talking about the Bible. John was using the Greek concept of the Logos (translated as Word) to say that the eternal God-idea had taken on flesh and become one of us, and that this Logos was God. John was saying that Jesus was the perfect communication of God to us, and that He was God. If you equate John's Logos with Scripture, you are left with the statement that Scripture is God.

 

[Liangonesearmy]

once again, you did not answer the question... what do you base your faith on?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

once again, you did not answer the question... what do you base your faith on?

Did you miss it? I base it on Jesus Christ.

 

[Liangonesearmy]

and how do you know Jesus Christ without the Word of God? how did you come to know Christ? How do you think Christ's words are preserved for us if not in the Word?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Christ's words are indeed preserved in the Bible. The NT is a collection of writings by the very early church recording what they had come to understand about Jesus.

Why the fact that I learn about Jesus from this collection of works and other church tradition means that I have to accept that Genesis is literal science is beyond me.

 

[lajekahr]

Can we stop quoting the Bible as refering to Unicorns! That has been proven to be a blunder in interpretation by the King James interpreters...unfortunately its not the only blunder....

Luke

 

[Hugs of Love]

I really like the topic you guys are on but I think that we need to get back to the original thread. I'm sure people would be more than happy to join you guys in your debate if you started another thread. I think you should go for it. I'm just sayin' that whoever started it probably wants his question answered.

 

[GenemZ]

Who's to say the dinosaurs werent babies when they were taken onto the ark? God didnt say "take 2 of every adult animal, male and female." And the word dinosaur wasnt given until the 1800's. Who's to say that the original word of dinosaur wasnt the word dragon, which knights went out to slay.

http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=articles&specific=15
This link has some pictures of dinosaurs, whether you chose to believe them or not

"Genesis 7:2 states that Noah saved two of every representative "kind" of land animal on the ark. Noah would have taken young specimens, not huge, older creatures. Dinosaurs would have emerged from the ark to inhabit an entirely different world. Instead of a warm, mild climate worldwide, they would have found a harsh climate which soon settled into an ice age. If climatic hardships did not cause the dinosaur's extinction, man's tendency to destroy probably did."

found from here: http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=articles&specific=23

If Noah had to take two of every species of animal onto the Ark, baby, or adult... he would have needed a fleet of arks to do so. Do you realize how many species of animals and creatures God has created??? The flood was local, and that was because man was only in his infancy. Only the "known world" was destroyed. That explains how only those animals indigenous to where man lived at that time could fit on the Ark. It is most likely, that man only lived in an area the size of several large counties (not countries) at that time. Man was only beginning to multiply on earth, and men were living to be very old... hundreds of years old. Genealogies in Genesis 5, reveal that men were not having children until they were almost a hundred, and not many. Man was not yet covereing the face of the earth. The only purpose of the flood was to wipe out man, not all the animals of the earth.

So, God saved only the animals who lived where man was living at that time. Only one Ark was needed for that reason. If every species of land and air creature were to be saved from a universal flood it would have required a large fleet of arks, not just one. And, if it were a universal flood, salt water would have mixed with fresh water, wiping out most marine life forever. That did not happen. God only destroyed the known world. If you read Genesis 11, you will see that the "world" was only where man lived, not the entire planet.

Genesis 11:1-2 niv

" Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. As men moved eastward, they found a plain in Shinar and settled there. "

The whole world at one point was living on the plain of Shinar. If God wanted to destroy that generation with a flood, all he would have to do to destroy "the whole world," would be to flood that area and what surrounds it. Only animals from that plain would need to be saved in pairs on an Ark.

It did not take a universal flood to destroy the whole world... Not, the "whole world" as seen in the Bible.

Just thinking and reading what is there.... Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[Card42]

Only the "known world" was destroyed. That explains how only those animals indigenous to where man lived at that time could fit on the Ark. It is most likely, that man only lived in an area the size of several large counties (not countries) at that time.

the way i understand it,
that's news to the Japanese
since their culture was in existence
during the possible dates
for the flood

and there were no Japanese
in Mesopotamia
at that time

 

[GenemZ]

the way i understand it,
that's news to the Japanese
since their culture was in existence
during the possible dates
for the flood

and there were no Japanese
in Mesopotamia
at that time

You are basing that on the 6,000 year old earth, theory? The genealogies that the 6,ooo year old earth was based upon, was a system that did not understand the ways of ancient thinking. Jesus was called the "son of David." It could be said, "Jesus, the begotten of David." That would set the date of Jesus birth way out of kilter with when he was really born. To calculate the earth's age in that manner would chop off potentially thousands of years.

The genealogies tended to skip those seen as being unimportant people in the line. And, remember, many men lived to be 800 years old back then. Skip a good number of those folks in the line who are not mentioned, and you can add literally thousands of years to the age of this current creation. There are scholars who recognize this factor and do not accept that this current creation is only about 6,000 years old. Because of the way genealogies were constructed back then it makes it impossible to get the age of the line of man exact.

I am not saying this that about the age of the planet itself. I am speaking of the creation that resides on the surface of this planet. The planet itself was created a very long time ago. Long before Genesis 1:2. Just like God will replace this creation in the future with a new Heavens and earth... Yet, the age of the planet does not run parallel to what resides created on its surface. Other creations have preceeded this one. Even Hebrew scholars many years ago saw this factor revealed in the Scriptures.

We will see it once again in the future, as well...

"Behold, I will create
new heavens and a new earth.
The former things will not be remembered,
nor will they come to mind." Isaiah 65:17 niv

And, eventually... this planet will be entirely destroyed and replaced by an everlasting creation...

" Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. "
Revelation 21:1 niv

God replaces creations like we replace and upgrade computers... Its simply his way of doing things.

Grace and peace, Gene

 

[InnerPhyre]

When people come out with young Earth arguments saying that dinosaure walked the Earth a couple thousand years ago, I can't help but imagining these people putting their fingers in their ears and saying "lalalalalalaalalalalalalaala"