Why aren't dinosaurs in the bible?

I can think of two times that dinosaures are mentioned in the bible. In the book of Job, it mentions both the Behemoth, and the Leviathan. The Behemoth is described as a very large land dwelling, herbervor, where as the Leviathan is described as a very large sea dwelling beast. I can't remember the lines exactly, but I'm sure you can look it up, and they sound a lot like dinosaurs.
 
isn't that kinda what a religious debate is?
Click to expand...

No. It is possible to take part in a religious debate while still respecting the views of people who don't hold the same religious beliefs as you do, and not everyone in this topic is doing so.
 
Stryfe said:
Chances are it was. Think of the history of the Jewish people and then think of it as a world aspect. There was plenty of generations before Jesus was born. It is a decent assumption.

There's also the fact that the Chinese weren't Jewish. Also, the Jewish people may have no way of knowing about a massive set of bones or what it was.

But yes, that IS up for debate. Do I smell a new thread?
Click to expand...

I'm just saying. There are quite a few people who would say that some of the books of the New Testament was written in the 200-300 AD era, when dinosaur fossils had been familiar in China for at least a century. Now, it may be most LIKELY that these books were written in the generally accepted timeframe, and it may be most LIKELY that the Jewish population would have no chance of knowing about dinosaur fossils, but you're forgetting that Romans assembled the modern Bible, not Jews.

Plus, you're cutting these people out of your assumption without even giving them the chance for any input, which just doesn't feel proper.
 
Ambiguity said:
I'm just saying. There are quite a few people who would say that some of the books of the New Testament was written in the 200-300 AD era, when dinosaur fossils had been familiar in China for at least a century. Now, it may be most LIKELY that these books were written in the generally accepted timeframe, and it may be most LIKELY that the Jewish population would have no chance of knowing about dinosaur fossils, but you're forgetting that Romans assembled the modern Bible, not Jews.

Plus, you're cutting these people out of your assumption without even giving them the chance for any input, which just doesn't feel proper.
Click to expand...

Understandable.

I forgot about how the romans assembled it, which completely throws off my theory to an extent. Yes, I meant that the Jewish people would have no communication from the Chinese about this discovery. I didn't edit my post in that manner, though.

Anyways, the reason that they were still occupying when the Bible was written still makes it for an easy answer. Even with the discovery when it was written, there's still a minimal chance they knew about it. Like you stated. So it comes down to a logical conclusion of they didn't know at the time about this and so dinosaurs weren't included.

As for cutting people out, my bad.

Tenshi said:
I can think of two times that dinosaures are mentioned in the bible. In the book of Job, it mentions both the Behemoth, and the Leviathan. The Behemoth is described as a very large land dwelling, herbivore, where as the Leviathan is described as a very large sea dwelling beast. I can't remember the lines exactly, but I'm sure you can look it up, and they sound a lot like dinosaurs.
Click to expand...

Used to demonstrate when you go against God.

"May those who curse days curse that day, those who are ready to rouse Leviathan. May its morning stars become dark; may it wait for daylight in vain and not see the first rays of dawn,"

"When my heart was grieved and my spirit embittered, I was senseless and ignorant; I was behemoth before you. Yet I am always with you; you hold me by my right hand. You guide me with your counsel, and afterward you will take me into glory."
 
Last edited:
Tenshi said:
I can think of two times that dinosaures are mentioned in the bible. In the book of Job, it mentions both the Behemoth, and the Leviathan. The Behemoth is described as a very large land dwelling, herbervor, where as the Leviathan is described as a very large sea dwelling beast. I can't remember the lines exactly, but I'm sure you can look it up, and they sound a lot like dinosaurs.
Click to expand...

True, but they could either be:

1.) figures of speech designed to describe something with exaggeration.
or...
2.) names for animals that haven't been named before or that the people were unfamiliar with at the time.

All science aside, don't we see that a lot these days with the Loch Ness Monster and all that stuff. And they're probably not even real (though I wish...) and it could be that that we're seeing in the above.
 
The terminology never existed in the 1st Century...but

Rhea said:
I was just a few minutes away from joining in Sir Auron's debate about creationism and evolitionism, but as I was reading through the topic, I saw a really interesting question: why aren't dinosaurs mentioned in the bible?
Now that I think back about it...I have asked this question multiple times, and no one has ever been able to answer it. I even attended a christian school for an entire year, in which I had to attend bible classes (what a bore). Anyhow...I asked my "pastor" this question before and he totally blew me off and changed the topic multiple times.

So...what's the answer?
Click to expand...

The "actual" terminology as such...."dinosaur" never existed in the 1st century, the time period in which the Biblical scripts were pinned to print, in fact the term was not ascribed into the language of man until the 18 hundreds.....however,

There are several passages of scriptures that one can consider as alternate in use.....two such terms were "Leviathan" and "Behemoth"...both carry a biblical meaning of representing very large creatures, but apparently different as defined by contextual use.

Job3:8...."May those curse it who curse the day, those who are ready to arouse Leviathan."

Job41:1-10 "Can you draw out Leviathan with a hook.........."

Psalm 74:14 "You broke the heads of Leviathan in pieces........."

Psalm 104:26 "There the ships sail about; There is the Leviathan.........."

Isaiah27:1 "..............Leviathan that twisted serpent; .........."

Job40:15-24 "Look now at the Behemoth........he eats grass like an ox.

A research Link http://www.apologeticpress.org/rearch/Dinosaurs_and_the_Bible.pdf.
 
It says that in the beginning God created the creatures. It doesn't specify which creatures, so those COULD be dinosaurs. As the poster above me said, the term dinosaurs wasn't used.

Some believe that evolution rules out the ideas in the Bible, but it's not necessarily so. For one thing, evolution is just a belief, as much as religion. There's no solid proof for it. Just bones, dated at different times. We never saw one thing become another.

As for Noah... You know, it's possible that the Bible ill full of metaphors, so not all the stories literally happened! You never know. It's possible that they're true, if God exists. He is meant to be omnipotent after all.
 
I'm getting lost here...
I'm pretty sure if someone decidided to read the bible cover to cover, there would be something that fits the dinsaur description...
 
The answer is because the bible was written after dinosaurs were extinct by some goverment that wanted to control and make money from the masses.
 
Man has long deluded himself into thinking it can accurately determine the "truth". In the past man has been the victim of charlatans....science, sometimes is no better, for example......

Mankind does not exactly have a reputation for accuracy......Men often are full of lies, deceit, and treachery (Jeremiah 9:3-9). We, as people, have a tendency to follow lies because lies usually tell us what we want to hear and not what we need to hear. Since science is a creation of man, would we expect it to be accurate or inaccurate? Consider the words of a popular scientist, Care Sagan, "Science thrives on errors, cutting them away one by one. False conclusions are drawn all the time, but they are drawn tentatively. Hypotheses are framed so they are capable of being disproved.....Science gropes and staggers toward understanding." In other words, Mr. Sagan is stating that science does not have the "truth" at this moment and it will not have the truth in the future, but men believe they are getting closer to the truth all the time. And this supposed to inspire confidence?

The apostle Paul speaks of such people who are "always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth" (2Tim3:7-9). As Paul goes on to say such men oppose the absolute truth. They are false teachers who are rejected by God and they will be rejected by people who open their eyes to their obvious lies. Was Paul's point. The same truth, could hold the same weight today....as the theories that we are overrun with are in fact just that....."speculations" grounded only in the constant quest for the truth without ever actually finding any factual support thereof.....just a best guess.

Some say there are scientific facts that "contradict" the Bible teachings....but is this really true?
At this point I could go on and on about how men, in the name of science, have duped the unsuspecting......not in the past, but even in recent years. However I will attempt to restrain myself and just look at one conflict between science and the Bible.

The Bible indicates the world is about 6000 years old. Even through the dating is based on genealogical data in the Bible and sections contain small gaps in the records, there are not enough gaps to extend the age of the world to the tens of thousands years, or even hundreds of thousands of years. Science is said to have proven the world to be billions of years old.

Interestingly, there are numerous ways to measure the age of the Earth. In fact the are about a thousand different methods on file. Yet the only ones that are given press are the ones which give he longest answers. The shorter answers, which are most numerous, are rarely mentioned. There are more scientific measurements which show the world to be about 10,000 years old than there are scientific measurements showing ages above one billion years.

When measuring time that has passed, the observer must make assumptions to cover missing information. Suppose you walk into a room and find a candle burring. You watch for period of time and find that the candle is being consumed at a rate of one inch per hour. How long has the candle been burning? Think about it, one really has no definitive way of knowing for certain....how can we know that in the past the candle has burned at the same constant as observed? What if the candle was tapered at the top and thicker toward the bottom? The diameter would affect the burn rate. What if the candle had been exposed to more concentrated oxygen...IE wind or breeze that fanned the flame....the questions and variable are endless....much as is it so with "speculation" on the age of the earth.

How old is the earth? No one can answer that question with certainty unless he was shown how it began and how rapidly it changed since the beginning. Science claims the world preceded man by billions of years. Since man was not present in the beginning, man cannot claim to know with certainty how much time time passed before he came on the scene.

A British engineer, Sidney Pl. Clementson, became interested in the accuracy of claims made by certain scientific labs in the dating of volcanic rock samples using radioactive dating methods. He sent off samples from 12 volcanoes in Russia and 10 volcanoes from other places around the world and published the results sent to him from the labs. The ages of the samples were wildly diverse between labs for the same volcano. For all the samples the ages ranged from 100 million to 10 million years. The fascinating part is that some of the volcanic rock was known to have been formed in eruptions within the last 200 years.

Does anyone remember reading about Austrailopiticus? The typical age for these fossilized remains is given as 4-5 million years. Ever wonder how they managed to date those bones? As organic matter cannot be dated beyond 30,000 years by current theories(in fact how can anyone state that something is a fact when even the methodology used to date is based only on theory?). Well these particular bones were found buried in volcanic rock, so the ages of the bones are "ASSUMED" to be approximately the same age of the surrounding rock.....and just how did they date the surrounding rock?

Besides, have you ever noticed that with each new discovery, the finder declares that his "bones" are older than the previous finds? Could it be that in order to gain notoriety, a person must have the oldest bones on the block? It sounds to me like a "my bones are older than your bones" competition among men whose funding is based solely on their fame.

In fact there have been pictures taken from Texas showing "dinosaur" tracks which are intermixed with human tracks. Of course, current scientific theory says dinosaurs died out long before men appeared on the earth. Why is factual evidence ignored, or explained away with some offhanded counter theory? Because such evidence contradicts what some people want to believe....and that is were the "MONEY" is. Instead of modifying unworkable theories which cannot match the facts, the facts are denied or just simply ignored and never presented for obvious reasons. The "theory" has become the truth and accepted as fact......truth is often shoved aside. 54
 
Last edited:
I'm not one to knock religion, but I believe in science a hell of a lot more than I believe in religion. You talk about science being deceitful and inaccurate? Hm, gee, let's see...what cures Polio: praying to God or the Polio vaccination that was developed by the scientific community? I'd have to say the latter, thanks. And while it's true that no hypothesis can ever be proven 100% beyond a doubt, science is doing pretty well for itself, I'd say. Because of science, we're all able to live to the ages of 70-80, not have to worry about dying as a result of smallpox, and have improved the quality of life by leaps and bounds. So hey, if science is the work of "charlatans," they're some fucking amazing charlatans.

I can't believe that people really question why dinosaurs aren't in the Bible. Maybe it's because I studied the Bible in an environment devoid of religion, but it's honestly like asking "Why are there
Cyclopes in 'The Odyssey' when they aren't real?" THE BIBLE IS NOT A HISTORICAL TEXTBOOK. The Old Testament, which contains all of the "historical" background on the Earth according to the Jewish faith, is simply a mish-mash of different Pagan traditions. The Bible is, essentially, religious folklore that was written down on scrolls by MEN and once compiled, managed to become the number one bestseller of all time. If the men who wrote the different pieces of Bible had known about dinosaurs, they probably would have been incorporated. You need to understand, however, that between the 12th century BC and 2nd century BC (when the Old Testament was compiled/written), archaelogy was a non-existant field. The men who were writing the Bible were simply using older religious/Pagan folklores to describe the beginning of the world according to their faith. Every culture has folklore that describes the beginning of the world. Just because the Christian/Jewish tradition was written in texts that were later compiled into what we know as the Bible doesn't make it any more valid than the ancient Greek's folklore that dealt with the beginning of the world.

Yes, dinosaurs existed. Get over it. It's not in the Bible because they didn't have any knowledge of their existance. If you want accurate history, pick up a history textbook. If you want religious folklore/traditions, pick up a Bible.
 
They could change it if they wanted to. The bible was created after the dinosaurs, back when there was no archeologists. That should explain things..?
 
Erythritol said:
I'm not one to knock religion, but I believe in science a hell of a lot more than I believe in religion. You talk about science being deceitful and inaccurate? Hm, gee, let's see...what cures Polio: praying to God or the Polio vaccination that was developed by the scientific community? I'd have to say the latter, thanks. And while it's true that no hypothesis can ever be proven 100% beyond a doubt, science is doing pretty well for itself, I'd say. Because of science, we're all able to live to the ages of 70-80, not have to worry about dying as a result of smallpox, and have improved the quality of life by leaps and bounds. So hey, if science is the work of "charlatans," they're some fucking amazing charlatans.

I can't believe that people really question why dinosaurs aren't in the Bible. Maybe it's because I studied the Bible in an environment devoid of religion, but it's honestly like asking "Why are there
Cyclopes in 'The Odyssey' when they aren't real?" THE BIBLE IS NOT A HISTORICAL TEXTBOOK. The Old Testament, which contains all of the "historical" background on the Earth according to the Jewish faith, is simply a mish-mash of different Pagan traditions. The Bible is, essentially, religious folklore that was written down on scrolls by MEN and once compiled, managed to become the number one bestseller of all time. If the men who wrote the different pieces of Bible had known about dinosaurs, they probably would have been incorporated. You need to understand, however, that between the 12th century BC and 2nd century BC (when the Old Testament was compiled/written), archaelogy was a non-existant field. The men who were writing the Bible were simply using older religious/Pagan folklores to describe the beginning of the world according to their faith. Every culture has folklore that describes the beginning of the world. Just because the Christian/Jewish tradition was written in texts that were later compiled into what we know as the Bible doesn't make it any more valid than the ancient Greek's folklore that dealt with the beginning of the world.

Yes, dinosaurs existed. Get over it. It's not in the Bible because they didn't have any knowledge of their existance. If you want accurate history, pick up a history textbook. If you want religious folklore/traditions, pick up a Bible.
Click to expand...

THANK YOU!!!! <3 :monster:

Really....people who lived in BC and beginning of AC didn't have the technology to know figure out what a Dinosaur is or looked like. Even if they found a bones they didn't have enough evidence to prove what a dinosaur was. They would probably thought it's a large odd rock.

Megalosaurus was the first dinosaur to be formally described, in 1677, when part of a bone was recovered from a limestone quarry at Cornwell near Oxford, England.
Click to expand...
 
Erythritol said:
I'm not one to knock religion, but I believe in science a hell of a lot more than I believe in religion. You talk about science being deceitful and inaccurate? Hm, gee, let's see...what cures Polio: praying to God or the Polio vaccination that was developed by the scientific community? I'd have to say the latter, thanks. And while it's true that no hypothesis can ever be proven 100% beyond a doubt, science is doing pretty well for itself, I'd say. Because of science, we're all able to live to the ages of 70-80, not have to worry about dying as a result of smallpox, and have improved the quality of life by leaps and bounds. So hey, if science is the work of "charlatans," they're some fucking amazing charlatans.

I can't believe that people really question why dinosaurs aren't in the Bible. Maybe it's because I studied the Bible in an environment devoid of religion, but it's honestly like asking "Why are there
Cyclopes in 'The Odyssey' when they aren't real?" THE BIBLE IS NOT A HISTORICAL TEXTBOOK. The Old Testament, which contains all of the "historical" background on the Earth according to the Jewish faith, is simply a mish-mash of different Pagan traditions. The Bible is, essentially, religious folklore that was written down on scrolls by MEN and once compiled, managed to become the number one bestseller of all time. If the men who wrote the different pieces of Bible had known about dinosaurs, they probably would have been incorporated. You need to understand, however, that between the 12th century BC and 2nd century BC (when the Old Testament was compiled/written), archaelogy was a non-existant field. The men who were writing the Bible were simply using older religious/Pagan folklores to describe the beginning of the world according to their faith. Every culture has folklore that describes the beginning of the world. Just because the Christian/Jewish tradition was written in texts that were later compiled into what we know as the Bible doesn't make it any more valid than the ancient Greek's folklore that dealt with the beginning of the world.

Yes, dinosaurs existed. Get over it. It's not in the Bible because they didn't have any knowledge of their existance. If you want accurate history, pick up a history textbook. If you want religious folklore/traditions, pick up a Bible.
Click to expand...


Down though the centuries, opponents of the bible have attacked its historical accuracy. Time after time, the Scriptures have been thus questioned, only later to be shown correct by archaeology, and science. Science is very useful when it is kept within the context of factual information and has indeed been very helpful to mankind....one does not have to deny science to accept the truth of the scriptures. There have been many mis-truths represented by the educational institutions throughout the world concerning the validity of the word of God....you in fact have presented a few and blindly accepted what you are taught as "fact"....for instance, some make the claim that the none of the New Testament scripts were written before 325AD....when scholar after scholar have validated all 27 books of the NT that have been "cannonized", as have been written between 45AD and 150 AD...some 200 plus years before the 1st council of Nieasa in 325 AD. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament

A FEW EXAMPLES OF BIBLICAL HISTORY THAT WAS QUESTIONED

Grapes in Egypt? People for generations "proclaimed" the biblical account of describing grapes as having been located in Egypt...as a historical "lie" and proof that the scriptures were not to be trusted as factual.

In Genesis 40 we are told how Joseph interpreted the dream of Pharaoh's butler. In this dream grapes are mentioned. But the ancient historian, Herodotus, states that the Egyptian grew no grapes and drank no wine, and many therefore questioned the accuracy of the biblical account. However, paintings discovered on the ancient Egyptian tombs, show the dressing, pruning, and cultivating of the vines, and also the process of extracting the juice of grapes as well as scenes of drunkenness. There can be little doubt then that Herodotus was wrong the Bible right.

THE BRICKS OF PITHOM:

In Exodus 1:11, we are told that the children of Israel built the treasure cities of Pithom and Raamses for Pharaoh. In Exodus 5, we are informed that they made bricks first using straw, and using stubble, because no straw was furnished them for that purpose. In 1883, Naville, and in 1908, Kyle, found at Pithom, one of the cities built by Israel, that the lower courses were built of bricks filled with good chopped straw. The middle courses have less straw including stubble. The upper courses were made of pure clay, with no straw whatever. It is difficult to read the biblical account and not be astonished at the amazing confirmation which archaeology here has given to the truth of the scriptures.

THE HITTITES:

Forty-eight times in the Scriptures, a people called the Hittites are mentioned. We find them blcoking Israel's path as it sought to enter the promised land. We read of Uriah, the Hitite, whom David sent to his untimely death. However, in all the records of antiquity, not a reference to the those people was to be found, and therefore, the skeptics attributed them to the imagination and fiction. In 1876, George Smith, began a study of monuments at a place called Djerabis in Asia Minor. This city proved out to be old Carchemish, a capital of the ancient Hatti. We now know that the Hatti were the Hittites of the Bible, who, according to Prof. A. H. Sayce, "contended on equal terms with both Eghpt and Assyria." The Hittites not only proved to be a real people, but empire was shown to be one of the great ones of ancient times.

moore latter......time eludes my completion of this topic....I will finish at a more convenient time. Thanks.....54
 
Fify Four said:
Down though the centuries, opponents of the bible have attacked its historical accuracy. Time after time, the Scriptures have been thus questioned, only later to be shown correct by archaeology, and science. Science is very useful when it is kept within the context of factual information and has indeed been very helpful to mankind....one does not have to deny science to accept the truth of the scriptures. There have been many mis-truths represented by the educational institutions throughout the world concerning the validity of the word of God....you in fact have presented a few and blindly accepted what you are taught as "fact"....for instance, some make the claim that the none of the New Testament scripts were written before 325AD....when scholar after scholar have validated all 27 books of the NT that have been "cannonized", as have been written between 45AD and 150 AD...some 200 plus years before the 1st council of Nieasa in 325 AD. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament

A FEW EXAMPLES OF BIBLICAL HISTORY THAT WAS QUESTIONED

Grapes in Egypt? People for generations "proclaimed" the biblical account of describing grapes as having been located in Egypt...as a historical "lie" and proof that the scriptures were not to be trusted as factual.

In Genesis 40 we are told how Joseph interpreted the dream of Pharaoh's butler. In this dream grapes are mentioned. But the ancient historian, Herodotus, states that the Egyptian grew no grapes and drank no wine, and many therefore questioned the accuracy of the biblical account. However, paintings discovered on the ancient Egyptian tombs, show the dressing, pruning, and cultivating of the vines, and also the process of extracting the juice of grapes as well as scenes of drunkenness. There can be little doubt then that Herodotus was wrong the Bible right.

THE BRICKS OF PITHOM:

In Exodus 1:11, we are told that the children of Israel built the treasure cities of Pithom and Raamses for Pharaoh. In Exodus 5, we are informed that they made bricks first using straw, and using stubble, because no straw was furnished them for that purpose. In 1883, Naville, and in 1908, Kyle, found at Pithom, one of the cities built by Israel, that the lower courses were built of bricks filled with good chopped straw. The middle courses have less straw including stubble. The upper courses were made of pure clay, with no straw whatever. It is difficult to read the biblical account and not be astonished at the amazing confirmation which archaeology here has given to the truth of the scriptures.

THE HITTITES:

Forty-eight times in the Scriptures, a people called the Hittites are mentioned. We find them blcoking Israel's path as it sought to enter the promised land. We read of Uriah, the Hitite, whom David sent to his untimely death. However, in all the records of antiquity, not a reference to the those people was to be found, and therefore, the skeptics attributed them to the imagination and fiction. In 1876, George Smith, began a study of monuments at a place called Djerabis in Asia Minor. This city proved out to be old Carchemish, a capital of the ancient Hatti. We now know that the Hatti were the Hittites of the Bible, who, according to Prof. A. H. Sayce, "contended on equal terms with both Eghpt and Assyria." The Hittites not only proved to be a real people, but empire was shown to be one of the great ones of ancient times.

moore latter......time eludes my completion of this topic....I will finish at a more convenient time. Thanks.....54
Click to expand...

I'm gonna just ignore the first part of what you were saying as it was completely irrelevant. Who cares when the New Testament was written? First off, we aren't talking about the New Testament. Secondly, a century or two isn't a long time in the span of history. It doesn't really matter. Also, it's a relatively accepted fact that the New Testament was written/compiled between 45 AD and 140 AD. But again, sort of irrelevant.

Yes, it's not shocking that the Bible includes historical facts about the times in which it was written, such as what foods were eaten and what materials were used to construct houses. The men who wrote the Bible would be quiet knowledgable about those sorts of facts. That's not a great achievement. People don't have grand Biblical arguments over whether the Egyptians ate grapes. No one really cares about such minute details. I'm talking about the Biblical stories that are, quite frankly, simple tall tales: Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark, Sodom and Gommorah, etc. Adam and Eve is, I believe, something that originated from Pagan story. The great flood that inspired the Noah's Ark tale was either a) inspired by an actual flood that occured or b) inspired by the flood from The Epic of Gilgamesh, which predates the Old Testament. Sodom and Gommorah is a little trickier. There probably were cities (perhaps by those names) that met the ruin that befell Sodom and Gommorah. Was it because God was angry that townspeople tried to rape his angels? Doubtful. Does the whole "being turned into a pillar of salt for looking back at the destroyed cities" echo the Greek myth of Orpheus? Absolutely. The point I'm trying to make is that on the larger scale, the Old Testament is like a melting pot of borrowed religious folklore and some new Jewish concepts. Dinosaurs didn't appear in the Bible because they simply were not yet discovered. The writers of Bible could write about common occurances in their time or in the recent past, including wars, famines, floods, and mundane things-- such as what people ate-- and spin fabulous tales with a bit of moral value: ie, Sodom and Gommorah. What they could not do, however, was know about the distant past (like Dinosaurs).
 
Erythritol said:
I'm gonna just ignore the first part of what you were saying as it was completely irrelevant. Who cares when the New Testament was written? First off, we aren't talking about the New Testament. Secondly, a century or two isn't a long time in the span of history. It doesn't really matter. Also, it's a relatively accepted fact that the New Testament was written/compiled between 45 AD and 140 AD. But again, sort of irrelevant.

Yes, it's not shocking that the Bible includes historical facts about the times in which it was written, such as what foods were eaten and what materials were used to construct houses. The men who wrote the Bible would be quiet knowledgable about those sorts of facts. That's not a great achievement. People don't have grand Biblical arguments over whether the Egyptians ate grapes. No one really cares about such minute details. I'm talking about the Biblical stories that are, quite frankly, simple tall tales: Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark, Sodom and Gommorah, etc. Adam and Eve is, I believe, something that originated from Pagan story. The great flood that inspired the Noah's Ark tale was either a) inspired by an actual flood that occured or b) inspired by the flood from The Epic of Gilgamesh, which predates the Old Testament. Sodom and Gommorah is a little trickier. There probably were cities (perhaps by those names) that met the ruin that befell Sodom and Gommorah. Was it because God was angry that townspeople tried to rape his angels? Doubtful. Does the whole "being turned into a pillar of salt for looking back at the destroyed cities" echo the Greek myth of Orpheus? Absolutely. The point I'm trying to make is that on the larger scale, the Old Testament is like a melting pot of borrowed religious folklore and some new Jewish concepts. Dinosaurs didn't appear in the Bible because they simply were not yet discovered. The writers of Bible could write about common occurances in their time or in the recent past, including wars, famines, floods, and mundane things-- such as what people ate-- and spin fabulous tales with a bit of moral value: ie, Sodom and Gommorah. What they could not do, however, was know about the distant past (like Dinosaurs).
Click to expand...


Well first off, "one can not ignore the New Testament" when talking about the Holy Scriptures, as the Old Testament and the truth thereof is directly "referenced almost 300 times in the New Testament, as a confirmation that the prophecies of the House of Israel were in fact being fulfilled by the happenings in and around the time of the Christ. As "you" were the one that made the "blatant" statement that the Scripture held no historical truths, not "I". A few more follows.....

SARGON:

In Isaiah 20:1, we read, "In the year that Tartan came unto Ashodod,(when Sargon the king of Assyria sent him..." This is the only mention of ancient literature. His place in history was severely questioned on this account. But in the years, 1842-1845, P.E. Botta, uncovered the tremendous royal palace of Sargon. Among the other things discovered was an account of the siege of Ashdod mentioned in Isaiah. Once more the Bible was right, the critics proven wrong.

THE FLOOD:

Genesis 7 and 8 tell us of the destruction of the world by a great flood. To many, the story of the flood is actually a recording of ancient myths. However, we have much evidence outside the Bible to show that the flood was reality and that the Bible is true. Notice the flood traditions of ancient peoples. One scholar lists 88 different traditional accounts. Almost all of these agree that there was a universal destruction of the human race and all living creatures by a flood. Almost all agree that an ark or a boat was the means of escape. Almost all are in accord in saying that a seed of mankind was left to perpetuate the race. Many adds that wickedness of man brought about the flood. Some even mention Noah. Several speak of the dove and the raven, and some discuss a sacrifice offered by those who were saved. To anyone familiar with the biblical account, the similarity is astounding. The universality of the tradition is such as to establish that the biblical flood was not a "figment" of someone's imagination.

In 1872, George Smith, discovered the now famous Babylonian flood tablets. In these, a certain person was told to build an ark or ship and to take into it seed of all creatures. He was given the exact measurements and was instructed to use pitch in sealing it. He took his family into the boat with food. There was a terrible storm which lasted six days. They landed on Mt. Nazir. He sent out a dove. It came back. He sent out a swallow. It came back. He sent out a raven and it flew back and forth over the earth. When these people were safely out of the boat, they offered sacrifice to the gods. The account differs from the Bible in some particulars, but is so much in agreement with the Scriptures as to make one wonder how the historical nature of the flood could be questioned.

Furthermore, archaeology has found positive evidence of a great flood in some ancient cities. At Susa, a solid deposit of earth five feet thick was found between two distinct civilizations. The nature of the deposit establishes beyond doubt that Susa was completely destroyed by a flood which was not merely local. At Ur, the ancient home of Abraham, a similar deposit of water that laid clay eight feet thick was found. This deposit clearly shows that Ur was destroyed by a flood of such proportions that is mush have been a vast flood such as the one of the Bible. Further evidence could be presented, but this should be sufficient to demonstrate that the Biblical flood was not "imagined".

JERICHO:

Joshua 6, tells how Israel conquered the walled city of Jericho. For six days they marched once around the city. On the seventh day they went around it seven times. The priests blew their trumpets, the people shouted, and when they did, "The wall fell down flat" (Joshua 6 20). The people then rushed straitway into the city and burned it. They took none of it to themselves. They saved Rahab who lived in a house upon the wall and who had helped them previously.

Starting in 1929, Dr. John Garstang, excavated the ruins of ancient Jericho. His discoveries corresponded remarkably with the Biblical account. Jericho, he found, had a double wall, with houses built across he two walls. This explains how Rahab's house could have been built upon a wall. He learned that the wall was destroyed by some kind of violent convulsion such as that described in the Bible, and that as the Bible says, it fell down flat. Had the wall been destroyed by the battering rams of an enemy army, the walls would have fallen inward instead of downward. Furthermore, the city had been burned. Once again, the spade of archaeology has established the accuracy of the Bible.

SERGIUS PAULUS, THE PROCONSUL:

In Acts13:7, mention is made of Sergius Paulus, the proconsul of Cyprus. For a long time, skeptics contended that Luke should have called him propraetor instead of proconsul since this was the usual title. However, coins, discovered on Cyprus, have positively established that the governors of Cyprus were indeed proconsuls. One such coin found at Soli on Cyprus bears the inscription, "Paulus the Procousul", very possibly referring to the very man mentioned in Acts.

CONFIRMATION BY NON-BIBLICAL WRITERS:

Some Biblical accounts have been substantiated by non-biblical writers. For example: the Jewish historian Josephus has said many things concerning facts in the Bible. For example: in Matthew14:3-4, we are told that Herod put John the Baptist to death for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip's wife, because John had informed Herod that it wasn't lawful for him to have her as his wife. Josephus tells us why it was unlawful. Herodias had originally been married to Herod's brother, Philip. But she divorced Philip and married Herod. This unlawful marriage was the occasion of John's rebuke. The account of Josephus and the Bible are in perfect accord.

APPARENT INCONSISTENCIES:

Apparent inconsistencies fade away whenever the Bible is studied with an open mind. An example is found in regard to the ruling family of Palestine in Matthew2:1, we read of "Herod the King" who was reigning when Jesus was born. Matt2:19 record his death. Yet in Acts 12:12, we read once more of "Herod the King" putting James to death. How could he do this if he were already dead? Does he Bible contradict itself? Josephus, and unbeliever in Christ, explains the difficulty by showing that Herod of Acts 12, was actually the grandson of the he Herod mentioned in Matthew 2. The Bible agress perfectly with the facts of "history".

Again Luke 2:1, mentions "Caesar Augustus" as the ruling monarch of the Roman Empire. In Luke 3:1, we are told that John the Baptist began his ministry in the fifteen year of the reign of Tibberius Caesar. This shows that Augustus was no longer on the throne. Still later in Acts 25:21, we find Paul appealing his arrest to Augustus. A superficial reading might lead us to suppose that the Bible contradicts itself. But on closer examination, with other known facts, we find that the emperor at the time was Nero, whose full name was Caesar Augustus Nero. Luke, the author of both books in question does not explain this because the firs century readers were familiar with the fact that there were two different men named Augustus.

The attacks upon the credibility of the Bible have served to make people stronger, not weaker in the conviction of the true Word of God.

And I as yet have failed to see anyone "prove" that dinosaurs did not walk upon the earth in biblical times. I have seen a lot of "postured" pompous "speculation" backed only by more pompous speculation of theory based in the methodology that holds no "standard" of calibration and leaves all acceptable scientific method behind. Live with the fact that "you" can not prove what you hold as truth. BD
 
Last edited:
Fify Four said:
And I as yet have failed to see anyone "prove" that dinosaurs did not walk upon the earth in biblical times. I have seen a lot of "postured" pompous "speculation" backed only by more pompous speculation of theory based in the methodology that holds no "standard" of calibration and leaves all acceptable scientific method behind. Live with the fact that "you" can not prove what you hold as truth. BD
Click to expand...

Wait.....what does this have to do with explaining about Dinosaurs and the bible? Your just reciting random bible lines that have nothing to back up your argument. Creatures could be anything first of all. Whales, monkeys, lions etc.

Your saying the Bible is correct? Right first of all, as said above it's a work of literature. It's book written by a group of men. *sighs* As said above the Bible IS NOT a history book. Yes the Bible has some actually historical facts. So what? Second off, scientist have proven already how old dinosaurs are. You learn that in elementary school...... They died millions of years ago before man kind walked on earth.

Sorry but your argument is really weak or you could be just a troll.
 
Cerridwen said:
Wait.....what does this have to do with explaining about Dinosaurs and the bible? Your just reciting random bible lines that have nothing to back up your argument. Creatures could be anything first of all. Whales, monkeys, lions etc.

Your saying the Bible is correct? Right first of all, as said above it's a work of literature. It's book written by a group of men. *sighs* As said above the Bible IS NOT a history book. Yes the Bible has some actually historical facts. So what? Second off, scientist have proven already how old dinosaurs are. You learn that in elementary school...... They died millions of years ago before man kind walked on earth.

Sorry but your argument is really weak or you could be just a troll.
Click to expand...


As you said....they "could" be anything....but they are described as Large beasts and assigned "special" names, other than the rest of the creatures. It is impossible to call them "dinosaurs" due to the fact, the term had yet to be "imagined" by man. I do not attempt to "prove" anything, but only suggest "possibilities" in relation to terminology. Just as science can not prove they did not exist...it can only "speculate". But the fact that they can not be "dismissed" by mere theory proves that the words of scriptures are not the "total" fabricated fables as was presented....with a little historical background. BD
 
So now your saying they don't exist? Science does prove dinosaurs exist. There is something called bones and radiocarbon dating. Gee, I wonder in why in the Museum of National History there are large dinosaur skeletons there!?

Now wouldn't you think the people who wrote the bible describe about large lizard-like beasts walking among them? Well they didn't. I think we would know by now that if dinosaurs lived at the same time humans did. You know, it's called carbon dating.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur There is a history of discovery there.
 
Fify Four said:
As you said....they "could" be anything....but they are described as Large beasts and assigned "special" names, other than the rest of the creatures. It is impossible to call them "dinosaurs" due to the fact, the term had yet to be "imagined" by man. I do not attempt to "prove" anything, but only suggest "possibilities" in relation to terminology. Just as science can not prove they did not exist...it can only "speculate". But the fact that they can not be "dismissed" by mere theory proves that the words of scriptures are not the "total" fabricated fables as was presented....with a little historical background. BD
Click to expand...

Your calling them dinosaurs is nothing but your imagination and opinion, there is absolutely NOTHING backing it up. Even if they didn't have the term "dinosaur" back then, there would still likely be some sort of description of them letting us know whether or not they were dinosaurs.

You wanna know why dinosaurs aren't mentioned in the Bible? Simple answer:

Dinosaurs existed before humans did.

Humans have only been around for a couple thousand years. Dinosaurs existed millions of years ago. There's a thing called carbon data testing that proves it. If you don't believe in carbon data, you should probably rethink believing in the entire periodic table of elements while you're at it. Christians always seem to discount carbon data yet fully agree with every other sort of chemistry, it's moronic.

Want some simple biological proof as to why dinosaurs weren't on Noah's ark and didn't exist during the time of humans? Look at a velociraptor. Notice the claws and sharp teeth? Yeah, that's because it was a carnivore. It hunted animals. It killed them. It ate them. Ever notice the spines on a stegosaurus's tail or the flail-like end on an ankylosaur's tail? That would be for protection against predators like the velociraptor and others.

Now, given that equally large dinosaurs (sometimes larger ones) had to protect themselves against other dinosaurs, it's highly likely that had homosapiens (or neanderthals, for that matter) existed during this period they would have been eradicated. Cave paintings are the earliest recorded forms of human history we have. Ever see any dinosaurs depicted in cave paintings? Nope. There's a reason for that. People didn't coexist with dinosaurs, they simply would have been hunted to extinction.

And that's why dinosaurs aren't mentioned in the Bible. They were long extinct by the time the Hebrews came around and thought up Jehovah.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top